Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 752 of 2020 1 - Kamalkrishna Goutam S/o Bihari Singh Goutam Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shivpur (Sihava), Tahsil Nagari, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Archana Goutam W/o Kamalkrishna Goutam Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shivpur (Sihava), Tahsil Nagari, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhawanisharan Goutam S/o Kamalkrishna Goutam Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Kamalkrishna Goutam, R/o Ward No. 10, Shivpur (Sihava), Tahsil Nagari, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Yachna Goutam D/o Kamalkrishna Goutam Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Kamalkrishna Goutam, R/o Ward No. 10, Shivpur (Sihava), Tahsil Nagari, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant 1 - Akhtar Khan @ Monu S/o Asraf Khan Aged About 27 Years R/o Thanapara, Sihawa, Post Sihawa, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jubeda B. W/o Mahboob Khan Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Bhitarras, Sihawa, Post Sihawa , Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager , Second Floor , Mobin Mahal , G.E. Road Raipur , Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
“7. It was also argued that in a judgment reported as Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577] , the injured was a 12-year-old girl who had suffered an injury to the extent that her IQ got less than 20% as compared to a child of her age and the medical board had assessed her social age to be only of a 9-month-old child. This Court had recognised that Schedule II of the Act could be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. This Court in the aforesaid case 4 held as under: (SCC pp. 419, 421 & 426, paras 6, 12 & 27). “6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, the compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages. 8. *** 12. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. 9. *** 27. One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the courts or the tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding the compensation. While awarding this amount, we are not only taking the physical disability but also the mental disability and various other factors. This child will remain bedridden for life. Her mental age will be that of a nine-month-old 5 child. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. We are dealing with a girl who will physically become a woman but will mentally remain a 9-month-old child. This girl will miss out playing with her friends. She cannot communicate; she cannot enjoy the pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth; the pleasures of a marital life; she cannot have children who she can love, let alone grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Hers is a vegetable existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs 15,00,000.” 10. In the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & ors, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, while computing loss of earning for calculating compensation to be granted to a 12 years old girl child who suffered permanent disability in a road accident dated 18.10.2007, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Courts have erred in taking notional income of Rs.15,000 p.a. as the girl was a young child of 12 years and held that this was not a proper way of assessing the future loss of income because after completing studies the child could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Hence, the Supreme Court applied the Minimum Wages payable to a skilled workman and opined that the same would be reflective of the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming major. 11. Subsequently, in case of Master Ayush (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the grant of compensation to the parents on account of injuries suffered by a five-year-old child in accident dated 21.9.2010, relying upon its decision in case of Kajal (Supra), observed 6 that the notional income should be calculated on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. It has also been observed that in addition to the Minimum Wages for skilled worker, the Claimants would also be entitled to 40% for future prospects in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 12. In case of Master Jyothis Raj Krishna represented by his next friend and father Rajesh Kumar vs. Sunny George, reported in 2024 SCC Online Ker 6875, the High Court of Kerala has observed that "This Court is conscious of the fact that by referring to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the purpose the notional income of a minor child, this Court has never ignored the future of a blooming young mind nor has closed its eyes over the bright future of the child and the prospects which he may have secured but for this fatal accident." 13. In case of Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zeenat Khan & ors, reported in 2024 SCC Online Del 6941 the Delhi High Court while dealing with an appeal by Insurance Company challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by presuming income of deceased child as per minimum wages of a unskilled labourer in Himachal Pradesh and adding future prospects @ 40%, has held that the Claims Tribunal has rightly calculated the notional income of the child @ Rs.8,250/-. The Court has observed thus:- 16. In light of the aforementioned rulings by the Supreme Court and this Court, the most reasonable approach to assess loss of dependency, even for a minor, would be to refer to the minimum wages established by the State Government in the location where the minor lived at the time of the accident. 7 17. As the notional income is being determined on basis of the minimum wages, future prospects would also be calculated on the basis of this income at the rate of 40% by applying the principle laid in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 18. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the notional income of the child @ Rs.8,250/-, which was the minimum wages for unskilled worker in Himachal Pradesh. The Annual income has thus been rightly calculated as Rs.99,000/- p.a. 40% of this Income, amounting to Rs.39,600/- has been further added to this amount towards future prospects in terms of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The notional income thus, calculated as Rs.1,38,600/- is in accordance with the observations made by the Apex Court, as discussed above.” 14. In C.M.A. No.1767/2022, parties being Sheelarani vs Sasirekha, wherein a nine year old child died in a road accident occurred on 20.11.2017, the Madras High Court has fixed notional income of deceased at Rs.60,000/- p.a. and applied multiplier of 15 to assess the loss of dependency. The Court has observed thus:- 5.2 Stricto sensu, none can price a life. Still, a life, whenever is lost in a tortious act, law imposes an obligation on the tortfeasor to compensate the loss with damages, and hence valuing life in monetary terms becomes indispensable. The difficulty is in valuing it fairly. And often the key factor that guides the court is either the actual earning through a lawful avocation, or an ability to earn assessable income on the basis of a victim's proven skills or education qualification. Sadly a child does not fall in either of these categories. Till not long ago, law has very insensitively dealt with a child's life as one without any income and valued a child's life at insulting rate. Law has not realised that Sania and 8 Sachin became what they are because they as children were allowed to blossom. Indeed, every child can achieve greatness that its ability to grow and to utilise the opportunity may grant it. To devalue a child's life for no fault of it, might not be the right approach. But law did it. 9.Turning to the facts of this case, the tragic accident had taken place on 20.11.2017. This Court considers that Rs. 60,000/- p.a., after considering the inflation and cost of living at 2017 as determined by this Court in Sakunthala and Govindaraj cases, is appropriate notional income, and chooses to apply 15 as the multiplier without any deduction.” Perusal of the aforementioned decisions would show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court for assessing income on notional basis of a minor child, held that income is to be assessed keeping in mind the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As the date of accident was 06.12.2018, minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing for the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 of an Unskilled Labourer of ‘C’ Zone area was Rs. 8,140/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to determine the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,140/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 15.Learned Claims Tribunal added 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects, deducted 1/2 towards personal and living expenses and multiplier of 18 which is to the tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla 9 Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 which does not call for any interference. 16.Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expenses. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) had specified conventional heads on which, compensation in death case is to be awarded and also quantified as loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- to the Applicants/Claimants No. 1 & 2 i.e. the parents of the deceased, loss of estate. Award of consortium is further clarified by the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC and explained the types of consortium as spousal consortium to widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In case at hand, Appellants/Claimants No. 1 & 2 are parents and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium (total Rs. 80,000/-) respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 17.As this Court has awarded the compensation under the head of loss of consortium, the Appellants/Claimants will not be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection as it subsumes the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. 10 18. Claimants will be entitled for the amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and further, the claimants will also be entitled for Rs. 80,170/- as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Pranay Sethi (Supra) had observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads and therefore, amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 20. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants: S. Heads Compensation No. 1. (A) Loss of Income/Dependency : Rs. 12,30,768/- 8,140 X 12 = 97,680/- (B)Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (97,680 X 40% = 39,072) ( 97,680 + 39,072 = 1,36,752) (C) Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (1,36,752 X 1/2 = 34,754) (1,36,752 – 68,376 = 68,376/-) (D) Multiplier of 18 (68,376 X 18 = 12,30,768/-) 2. Funeral Expenses 3. Loss of Estate 4. Loss of filial consortium to : : : (+) Rs. 16,500/- (+) Rs. 16,500/- (+) Rs. 88,000/- Claimant/Appellants No. 1 & 2 @ Rs. 44,000/- each (44,000 X 2) Total Compensation : Rs. 13,51,768/- 11 21. Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 13,51,768/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 22. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
Arguments
: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.N.Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 18/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 58/2019. 2. Motor-accidental injuries suffered by the appellant, involvement of the offending vehicle driven by Non-Applicant No.1, owned by Non- Applicant No. 2, insured by Non-Applicant No. 3 and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company is not in dispute, hence, this Court is not adverting to the facts as pleaded in the claim application, reply and discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. However, this Court is only considering the grounds raised seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties in this regard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the this appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month only, which is much less and 3 further that the compensation awarded under the other heads is also on lower side. Compensation awarded be suitably enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission made by counsel for the appellants and would submit that, compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, it does not call for any interference. He submits that, the deceased was not an earning member and therefore, Claims Tribunal has assessed his income notionally as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 6. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 14 years has assessed his income as Rs. 3,000 per month and upon adding 40% towards the loss of future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, by applying multiplier of 18 computed compensation to Rs. 5,63,770/-. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Master Ayush Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738 has observed as under:-
Decision
23. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge